With today's announcement of the PlayStation Vita TV (for the Japanese market, at least), Sony becomes the latest in a long line of companies trying to exploit the low costs and surprisingly decent capabilities of mobile gaming technology to upend the traditional idea of a game console. Why pay hundreds for top-of-the-line technology, the argument goes, when you can remove the screen from a cheap smartphone (often the most expensive bit), insert an HDMI output, and have a perfectly capable low-end alternative to the living room set-top box?

The Vita TV has a leg up on a lot of the mostly Android-based competition in this space, thanks in no small part to its established library of top-shelf games. Still, I feel like all of these microconsoles are pretty much destined to be niche players that don't really satisfy a wide market need.

The idea of playing portable games on the TV is nothing new. Nintendo started the trend with the Super Game Boy back in 1994. They continued it later with the Game Boy Player, which let Game Boy Advance games be played on the TV through a Gamecube. The PlayStation Portable also featured components cables that allowed for direct HDTV output, a feature that was pointedly removed from the Vita.

These portable-to-TV solutions differ from today's slate of microconsoles in a few ways. For one, their asking price was even lower than the $100 price point that seems to be the sweet spot for today's efforts, even accounting for inflation. For another, they were generally positioned as niche novelties—ways to get some additional use out of your existing portable library—rather than full-fledged competition for the actual console hardware.

And make no mistake, the Vita TV and its Android-based microconsole cousins are competing more or less directly with their full-fledged console counterparts. You can argue that their extremely low cost and/or their more open development environments put them in a class by themselves. All of these systems fit generally into the category of "boxes that play games on my TV" though, and most consumers that aren't die-hard gaming aficionados aren't looking to buy more than one for their living room (one important exception: parents looking for a low-cost system for the kids to have in their room).

That means that you have to compare the Vita TV directly to competing products like Sony's own PlayStation 4. Vita TV starts off well with a price point that's about $300 cheaper, but the low cost doesn't look quite so low when you add in the cost of a controller and the proprietary memory card (which is practically a necessity on top of the tiny 1GB of internal storage). The price comparison looks even worse if you compare the Vita TV with the current generation of consoles. A brand new PlayStation 3 with 12GB of storage now costs $200. The PS3 also has a much wider lineup of games that were actually designed for a TV (more on that later), and it comes with its own controller to boot.

More importantly, it's not at all clear how much price sensitivity truly matters in the market for game consoles that are going to be attached to your TV for many years. Yes, the Wii rode its low cost-to-hardware sales dominance in the console generation that's currently wrapping up, but that was largely attributable to a unique and gimmicky control scheme and a must-have system seller in Wii Sports. Without those, the low price point alone likely wouldn't have mattered. Low prices surely didn't help the bargain-priced Nintendo GameCube and Sega Dreamcast when they went up against the much stronger PlayStation 2. Even the PlayStation 3, which was significantly more expensive than both of its competitors for years, was able to scrape into rough international sales parity with the Xbox 360, thanks in large part to some high-profile exclusive games that showed off the system's hardware power.

Splitting the market

Enlarge/ You will hold the Vita TV like this exactly once, then it will sit largely unused in your entertainment center.

Vita TV is not going to have many of those exclusives. On the contrary, Sony has made a big deal about how its highest-profile Vita games are "cross-buy" titles that already come packaged with a largely identical PS3 download (this also applies to the downloadable PSOne classics that make up a large chunk of the Vita TV's advertised 1,300 game library). And the games that are exclusively available on the Vita have been designed for a very different use case than that of a home console. You can go on and on about how the differences between consoles and portables are dwindling and how portable games are more like their console brethren than ever, but there's still a fundamental difference in the way people engage with a system held five inches from their face and one that's on the TV five feet away.

Games on the Vita are, in general and by necessity, designed to be played for short bursts, with frequent convenient stopping points and action that's easy to get into quickly. People look a for different experience when they hunker down on the couch, ready for an extended gaming session.

With the Vita TV, Sony awkwardly splits the market for these kinds of portable-minded games, putting developers in the difficult position of trying to cater to both audiences or (more likely) simply ignoring the newer, TV-based market and making games for the better-established portable side. And let's not forget about games that make use of the front or rear touchpads on the Vita. Sony has been pushing these features strongly as key differentiators for the portable system, but they will be entirely missing from the Vita TV. Should developers now ignore these features to expand the market for their games to the lowest common, TV-based denominator?

Then there are the issues of processing power. Yes, Vita games are closer to their console brethren than, say, Game Boy Advance games were to their competition on the PlayStation 2. But a game designed for the Vita is by necessity going to have access to less processing power and visual fidelity than one designed for the PS4 (or even the PS3). Games made for the Vita's native resolution of 960 x 544 are going to look decidedly worse when stretched out onto a 1080p HDTV screen, and they won't be able to handle as many moving parts under the hood as similar games on the PS3 or PS4.

That's fine if you're into playing great, simple games like Divekick or Lumines or Spelunky, games that are perfect for the subway or a long plane trip. But these are not the kinds of games that sell systems made for the living room. In general, people in the market for a game console want something that is going to make the most use of the expensive flat-screen TV and surround sound entertainment center they've invested in. In that environment, consumers are less likely to skimp on the actual gaming hardware and more likely to go for something that they can really show off, even if it costs a bit more.

Sony and the makers of other microconsoles might argue they are not aiming for those high-end customers. They are instead aiming to fill the market gap for people who want to play games casually and occasionally, without investing too much money. Unfortunately, that market segment is well-covered by smartphones and tablets that these customers probably already have, and it's covered even further by low-cost, dedicated portable systems for consumers that simply must have button-based controls. I don't think these casual players are too upset about playing on a touchscreen rather than a TV. They just want a simple diversion that they can pick up and play, hopefully without interrupting the episode of America's Next Top Model that's on in the background.

This isn't to say the Vita TV (or other microconsoles based on low-cost portable technology) will be a total bomb. The ability to add second-TV streaming to a PlayStation 4 is likely to be a killer app for many, and its use as a low-cost video streaming box is bound to get it some attention (though really, if you don't have a device that can stream Netflix to your TV at this point... what have you been waiting for?). As a market force in the gaming world, though, the Vita TV system seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. It's a console that's outclassed by Sony's own existing hardware.

Promoted Comments

Kyle, I didn't see you mention what I think will be the killer app for this device: Gaikai. That service is scheduled to launch in 2014 for PS4 and Vita, and I have to assume VitaTV will have access to that as well. I actually think the Vita functionality was a secondary bullet point, and Remote Play and Gaikai were both first.

Seeing as how this is being released in Japan first (where the PS4 isn't releasing until February), I think this announcement would've flopped if Sony waved it around as just a Remote Play endpoint/video streamer a la Apple TV. They needed to give this the ability to play games on its own, without relying on a beefier console to drive it.

As it stands we're looking at a device that's a better value than a Roku or AppleTV by virtue of it supporting real gaming capabilities in addition to Netflix/Hulu/YouTube. And for the price of an Xbox One the Vita TV would basically give you a PS4 in two rooms.

But once Gaikai and Sony's rumored IPTV services roll out, it has the potential to be truly disruptive.

A big part of the problem here is the cost of games for the Vita. When a system costs $100 and new games are 20-40% of that cost, it slows sales. Look at Ouya: $100 upfront, but they've had all kinds of trouble selling games for $8-10.

There's a lot of people (including me) who are heavily invested in PSN and for whom a "Roku-like" box that allows additional access to many of those PSN games would be a great value. However, are there enough of those to drive the system?

I just don't see enough new customers buying in to a PSVTV to make it viable. I hope I'm wrong.

Every time I see an article about one of these new low-end consoles, I'm reminded of the "classic games" console I often see at places like Walmart, with something like 64 old-school Atari 2600 games in one box, complete with chunky joysticks, all for something like $40. Every time I see it, I'm sorely tempted to pick one up. But then I think "I don't even have the time to play all the modern PC games I have /now/."

And as much fun as classics like Missile Command and Centipede may be, I'm not sure I can bring myself to play them often enough to warrant spending even $40. I don't think I could ever justify getting something like a Vita TV or Ouya console.

I see the Vita TV as the set top box for the gamer. Additional tiny boxes, even at bargain price, attached to one's TV are not going to succeed by themselves because casual TV users are usually happy with the integrated Smart TV features; streaming set top boxes are a niche product, an so it's the Vita TV but the latter has some advantages that could give it some additional traction:

1) PS Vita library has some high quality console-like games;2) Even if you own a PS Vita, at home some people would like to play those games on a bigger, distant screen to relax their eyes, with a proper controller to relax their hands (I'm one of these people);3) Streaming from a PS4 to another TV than the one it's attached to in another room is a big deal, similar to streaming from the PS4 to the Vita: the early Wii U experiments are proving this streaming thing worthy.4) Gaikai COULD be an awesome thing, but Sony's internet infrastructure, for now, has not proven itself to be that strong, so to me this is still an half point.

Of course it's a sum of parts rather that a revolutionary, disruptive product, so it will still be a niche box: however, the additional interest from gamers, true gamers, could make the Vita TV succeed in its niche (not every product needs to be bought by everyone).

31 posts | registered Sep 5, 2011

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

134 Reader Comments

For me, the killer feature is the PS4 remote play. Having it act as a second Vita for purposes of multiplayer is also a very neat feature: I have no reason to buy another Vita for my wife, but this would get used.

The biggest reason why the Vita TV will succeed is the PS4 remote play support. That, coupled with a few of the apps like Netflix and the ability to play Video and Music that you have stored on a PS3/PS4/PC. Then you can still play PS1/PSP/Some PSV games. It's a pretty perfect little $100 system.

For me, I plan to setup my PS4 in my bedroom, and buy a PSV TV at my Workplace to play when my bedroom TV is being used by the wife.

I haven't bought a Vita because the portables on the market these days are too damn small for me to play on comfortably for any length of time. I own a PSP, and use it primarily as an MP3 player, trying to play a game on it causes my hands to cramp after a short time. Vita TV might work for me since I could play with a full size dual shock controller, though.

I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis. The Vita TV is not designed to be a console replacement, nor to supplement Sony's upcoming PS4. It's designed to work with the PS4 and the DualShock 3 controller.

The true reason why it will be successful among PS4 owners is because it can be used to stream from a PS4 already in-house to another TV, without needing to move the console itself. This is extremely useful to those of us who are too lazy to disconnect and haul the PS4 to another location in the same house just to play a game on a different screen.

For 100 dollars, you basically get to have the PS4 functionality on another screen in your own home without needing to keep moving the console from screen to screen.

How about the fact that I want to play some of the games on the vita but don't give a damn about portability, did you consider that? I'm a hardcore gamer and quite excited about the Vita TV to fill a hole in my gaming library on the cheap. It's the only current console I don't own... Yet.

This article give us a good idea of what's happening in sales in the console and mobile world. This may be out as a result of this, rather than because of competition with consoles, or other mobile game models.

Stop thinking of this like a Vita with the screen ripped off. Think instead of a Roku that plays PSX and Vita games, and works as an extender for your PS4. You won't likely get tons of value from it alone, but in a household with a PS4? Huge.

Interestingly, as far as I'm aware, the Vita TV would be the only way to play PSP games on your TV short of hooking your PSP or Vita to your set, even with the PS3 and PS4 out there. Somewhat surprising considering the age of the PSP's hardware, but there you go (and that does open up a huge library of titles, albeit ones that are going to look atrociously awful on even a modest-sized TV).

Stop thinking of this like a Vita with the screen ripped off. Think instead of a Roku that plays PSX and Vita games, and works as an extender for your PS4. You won't likely get tons of value from it alone, but in a household with a PS4? Huge.

The authors description could apply to one of those Android on a stick that the Chinese mass produce.

Interestingly, as far as I'm aware, the Vita TV would be the only way to play PSP games on your TV short of hooking your PSP or Vita to your set, even with the PS3 and PS4 out there. Somewhat surprising considering the age of the PSP's hardware, but there you go (and that does open up a huge library of titles, albeit ones that are going to look atrociously awful on even a modest-sized TV).

You can also emulate, PPSSPP has gotten pretty good. I guess that's on a computer rather than TV, though.

The true reason why it will be successful among PS4 owners is because it can be used to stream from a PS4 already in-house to another TV, without needing to move the console itself. This is extremely useful to those of us who are too lazy to disconnect and haul the PS4 to another location in the same house just to play a game on a different screen.

I don't think it's being lazy at all to not want to move a console around constantly. The Vita TV could be a Godsend for married men like me who have wives who give them crap for gaming on the main tv. My office is in the basement and I never get any grief for working. It's time to put in a LOT of overtime. Married men everywhere will rejoice with this wonderful new advent of console gaming.

We have a Roku on our second TV to watch Netflix and Amazon Instant Video. I think it cost around $75, though that's just a vague recollection. Is something that can do everything the Roku can do, AND play Vita games, AND do PS4 remote play, worth $25 more than a Roku box? Darned right it is.

We have a Roku on our second TV to watch Netflix and Amazon Instant Video. I think it cost around $75, though that's just a vague recollection. Is something that can do everything the Roku can do, AND play Vita games, AND do PS4 remote play, worth $25 more than a Roku box? Darned right it is.

Unlike all those Android Micro-consoles you liken this to, almost all android games are built purely for touch screen. PSX,PSP,PSV,PSM,RemotePlay are all built with standard controls available.

Unlike all those Android micro-consoles competing with proper consoles, this device can complement/extend that (PS branded) proper console.

DS4 support is to be added later(PS4 won't be released until 3 months after VitaTV) - which should allow touch screen dependent games to be playable. Most touch screen use in Vita games is minimal, and not requiring high precision, making the touch pad on the DS4 workable. I guess it could double for the rear screen too? I can only think of LBP:Vita that uses both at the same time.

I think this is unlikely to be anyone's single standalone gaming device. But it might allow people to play the few Vita titles they've been interested in fairly cheaply(assuming they own a PS3/PS4, and buy the game at retail.)

WipEout 2048 is awesome, and possibly the last WipEout game there'll ever be people!

As far as the picture quality goes, probably this would've been better a few years ago when we all upgraded our TVs, and still had a spare CRT, but hey, PS360 had sub-720P games, and XB1 and PS4 are still getting sub-1080P games, and the majority of people don't even realise it. It might not be so bad.

For me, the killer feature is the PS4 remote play. Having it act as a second Vita for purposes of multiplayer is also a very neat feature: I have no reason to buy another Vita for my wife, but this would get used.

dawesdust_12 wrote:

The biggest reason why the Vita TV will succeed is the PS4 remote play support.

violentmana wrote:

The true reason why it will be successful among PS4 owners is because it can be used to stream from a PS4 already in-house to another TV, without needing to move the console itself.

Daros wrote:

You won't likely get tons of value from it alone, but in a household with a PS4? Huge.

lostfanboi wrote:

The Vita TV could be a Godsend for married men like me who have wives who give them crap for gaming on the main tv.

From the last paragraph of the article: "This isn't to say the Vita TV (or other microconsoles based on low-cost portable technology) will be a total bomb. The ability to add second-TV streaming to a PlayStation 4 is likely to be a killer app for many..."

Interesting that Kyle can't even be bothered to fix the inaccuracies in the announcement article, but managed to have a "Why it will suck" article ready to go within hours of the announcement.

For a more thoughtful analysis of the Vita TV's potential in the market, check out Why PS Vita TV Could be a Game Changer over at IGN. Kinda sad that IGN are able to produce better tech analysis articles than Ars.

Now, it's amusing because the one thing that this is missing that could make it amazing is PSV->PSV-TV Remote play. Think about it. Your PS Vita acts as the controller to the game that you're playing on the TV. Allowing touch screen and rear touch panel to be used, while giving a "big screen" view.

I would seriously hate to be the young kid who gets one of these from their non-gaming parents just because it is cheaper than a full fledged console. Game companies fail to see that kids often want to play games that their friends play or recommend, this niche micro-consoles usually don't get nearly enough quality games to compete with full fledged consoles or get skipped in multiplatform releases because the hardware limitations hence they lose players fast. As an adult I know beforehand such limitations in game selection but good luck explaining to a young kid that the game they want is never coming to their micro console because the hardware sucks... you lose either way. (And the device just sits there unused afterwards)

Isn't Sony developing it's own service like Hulu or Netflix? This could be a device designed to get their video streaming service into your home without having a PS4. Or, if you do have a PS4 it is of even greater value to you hooked up to a TV in another room. You can watch pay-per-view video from any room and Sony makes money. It could work if the video service is a-la-carte.

So in summary the article is "I think Vita TV will fail because of smartphones".

With emphasis on the "I think" part with not much of an argument to back up that claim aside from the old "smartphones will be everything to everyone" claim. Which is why e-readers, tablets and the like continue to enter the market and completely bomb right?

And while I guess you can partially bomb something ("This isn't to say the Vita TV will be a total bomb") yet not be a complete failure ("destined to fail") it makes the article lose any bite it was meant to have.

If Vita TV is targeting people who game and want something portable they can watch streamed services on without draining their phones battery I think it'll do just fine. I haven't seen Sony claiming anything else so why is the author of this article assuming otherwise?

I disagree- I will absolutely buy one if Persona 4: The Golden is compatible with it. And I'll enjoy the game much more on a television than on a five-inch portable. Granted, that's the *only* game I want in the PS Vita market- but that's why I'm very interested in a cheaper method of getting the hardware, because I'm only in it for that one game at this point.

The other criticisms about the folly of playing mobile games on a television remain valid, but for RPG's (like P4G) to which I can dump dozens and dozens of hours into, I like the idea of playing it on a television with a Dualshock for cheap.

As many commenters have pointed out, the PS4 streaming is going to be the main reason to buy one. The fact that Kyle didn't mention it in the article is really a major misstep. I don't see it in competition with the PS3/4 or even Ouya, I see it as a PS4 extender that also plays Vita games. Really what's not to like?

I can buy a Vita TV and used memory card. Then, attach it to my 2nd TV, and either play Vita games for free, or my PS4 remotely with my DS4 attached. If that works well, I'm quite happy. That's a lot of Playstation value-add to my 2nd TV downstairs for about $150.

As many commenters have pointed out, the PS4 streaming is going to be the main reason to buy one. The fact that Kyle didn't mention it in the article is really a major misstep. I don't see it in competition with the PS3/4 or even Ouya, I see it as a PS4 extender that also plays Vita games. Really what's not to like?

Kyle, I didn't see you mention what I think will be the killer app for this device: Gaikai. That service is scheduled to launch in 2014 for PS4 and Vita, and I have to assume VitaTV will have access to that as well. I actually think the Vita functionality was a secondary bullet point, and Remote Play and Gaikai were both first.

Seeing as how this is being released in Japan first (where the PS4 isn't releasing until February), I think this announcement would've flopped if Sony waved it around as just a Remote Play endpoint/video streamer a la Apple TV. They needed to give this the ability to play games on its own, without relying on a beefier, unavailable console to drive it.

Honestly, I don't think Sony would have done this if the Vita wasn't struggling to sell hardware. I think the main reason to add this to the Vita line is to bluster the total sales.

Sony cant bring the developers to the platform because it isn't profitable. But if Sony can sell the Vita not only as a portable console and portable media player but a home set top box or even a pS4 accessory, it can increase sales of the hardware and use those statistics to draw in developers and publishers.

While this wouldn't be a conservative gamble if the Vita was successful, it hasn't been.

P.S.If you can use remote play with the PS4, then you can store everything on your PS4 HDD. Meaning you won't spend a fortune buying a memory card.

As many commenters have pointed out, the PS4 streaming is going to be the main reason to buy one. The fact that Kyle didn't mention it in the article is really a major misstep. I don't see it in competition with the PS3/4 or even Ouya, I see it as a PS4 extender that also plays Vita games. Really what's not to like?

I did mention it in the article.

a) My apologies Kyle... it was at the tail end, which I read, but somehow psyched myself out of noticing since I was shocked it wasn't earlier in the article.

b) How does my email address associate to a different account than my username, despite the same email being associated with my main username. Derp?!

Honestly, I don't think Sony would have done this if the Vita wasn't struggling to sell hardware. I think the main reason to add this to the Vita line is to bluster the total sales.

Sony cant bring the developers to the platform because it isn't profitable. But if Sony can sell the Vita not only as a portable console and portable media player but a home set top box or even a pS4 accessory, it can increase sales of the hardware and use those statistics to draw in developers and publishers.

While this wouldn't be a conservative gamble if the Vita was successful, it hasn't been.

P.S.If you can use remote play with the PS4, then you can store everything on your PS4 HDD. Meaning you won't spend a fortune buying a memory card.

But therein lies the conundrum. The Vita hasn't sold nearly as well as Sony had hoped, despite being a great system. On the flipside, the reported attach rate for games is pretty high, all things considered. In reality, I firmly believe that the new PS4-based Playstation ecosystem will draw more players into the Vita fold. Time will tell, of course, but I think it's good move followed by good move on Sony's part.

I really think that the key point of this article, more so than "Smartphones are destroying portable gaming!" is that:

No one truly wants to play their little portable games on the big TV screen.

Super Game Boy, Game Boy thing on Gamecute, PSP component cable, etc.

Any kind of TV out device for a portable system has ended up being a gimmick at best. And I know. I owned (maybe I still do in my stuff) a Super Game Boy. I used it in the few years when I had sold my Game Boy... but as soon as I bought a Game Boy Color I stopped using it. It was simply more convenient to curl up in any place in the house and play my games, to have it anywhere with me - at school, at home, whatever. No need to swap cartridges or dig out the controller. One device, instant on.

PSP Component cable is almost the same thing. By the time I can get out the console and plug the cable in and set up my TV to do it (never mind the fact that the cable is hella short), I could have started up my game already and played a few minutes.

It's largely a convenience factor, and as everyone's pointed out, the killer app isn't going to be the fact that it plays Vita games but the fact that it does a bunch of stuff that supports the PS4 ecosystem. For $100 it's worth that, and if they're lucky, Sony might happen to sell a couple of PSP Vita games too, but if you really really wanted to play PS Vita games portable is really the way to go. You can sit anywhere, free of wires, free of constraints, able to position the screen whereever you want, hold it as close to your face as you want, without disturbing your brother's TV show, your wife's soap opera, the kids' cartoon movie, your dad's sports game.

I realize the headline is supposed to be provocative (and provoked some people are!) but in a way this article really should be titled, "Why microconsoles are destined to fail" and is just as much as shoutout to Vita TV as it is to OUYA and other similar devices.

I think it could be a huge success in many less fortunate markets like Brazil. Often those markets are one generation behind and many people don't even have 1080p capable TV's.I don't think the comparison to Android based consoles is just. The Ouya comes the closest but it's still way off on every level. Nobody except of us geeks even knows the Ouya (or the likes). Nothing in this price category comes even close to the processing power of the Vita. Graphically it's at least 4 times more powerful compared to the Ouya on a hardware level (4x higher GFLOPS and memory bandwidth). Add to that the low level programming that PS Vita games enjoy. I don't see how the resolution could be an issue when so many X360/PS3 games are rendered sub-HD.The only issue I see is the price which need to be lowered to $100 for the bundle. But considering that $150 is the Japanese launch price, that could change soon after launch.